At the top of our concerns has to do with the Israeli Supreme Court, in particular the leftist Justices and the Justice Minister. These groups of Justices are thinking of invalidating the recent new Basic Law called the Nationality Law. In the past it has been considered beyond the scope of the Supreme Court to countermand any law passed as a Basic Law. These Justices had gotten used to acting in response to any leftist demands protesting laws passed by the Knesset and their having simply invalidating them from their position without having a case brought. This had become a dangerous situation as the Supreme Court had become a dictatorial force. The present Justice Minister had acted to bring such actions under control thus preventing the Supreme Court blocking legislation or even making laws from the bench and even at times countermanding orders given by officers in the IDF. Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked has thusfar prevented their doing so while under her watch. She had even stripped the Supreme Court from ordering demolitions of housing by restructuring the laws such that these were now to be decided in the lower courts where actual deeds of ownership would be required proving ownership of such lands rather than decrees coming without such proof as had become the case. No longer can a complaint be lodged without deed to prove ownership of lands as the Supreme Court had been doing in the past. Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked has warned these Supreme Court Justices not to act as they are considering or face severe consequences. Should they challenge her on this, they will soon understand that there is no fury like a women scorned. Hopefully, these justices will understand that the rules have changed and that they no longer rule Israel, the elected representatives of the people do. Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked has even altered the means by which new Supreme Court justices are chosen such that the court no longer basically can choose their own replacements. This has been a benefit for the people as their elected governance now rules and not a black robed group of unelected justices.

The supposed peace between Israel and Hamas has hit a snag, which may not be as bad as one might believe. Where the elected Hamas run government, elected being those chosen who Hamas picked to run, had agreed to the ceasefire but the military arm of Hamas has refused to honor any ceasefire choosing instead to try to destroy Israel through military means. The unfortunate result is the incendiary balloons and kites will continue to be launched into Israel setting more fires and potentially threatening homes and businesses. Many Israelis are reaching the point where they simply want Gaza erased from the earth and retaken complete cleared of its current inhabitants. The government refuses to bend to this will as they know that the United Nations, European Union, most European nations, the Arab and Muslim worlds and many others would be up in arms and demanding that Israel be brought before the International Court of Justice in the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The excuse which the Prime Minister would give any media asking his reaction to such a move would likely be that we cannot anger the United States and President Trump. What many Israelis believe is that President Trump would likely not say anything and would be more likely to block any motions in the Security Council demanding Israel be prosecuted stating that Israel was simply removing a terrorist threat to the nation and her people. Still, the Israeli government will not be testing this theory and the Hamas threats from Gaza will unfortunately remain for the time being. Eventually, their threat will require the retaking of Gaza and recognizing and admitting that relinquishing control of Gaza was a serious mistake for which Israel has been punished enough.

Further news from the confrontations along the Gaza perimeter not only include more launching of incendiary devices but also Hamas terrorists engaging IDF soldiers shooting at them resulting in IDF responding fire. The Hamas position was targeted by an IDF tank and the position was eliminated killing the two Hamas terrorists who had engaged the IDF from an armored bunker. Armored bunkers are quite adequate to protect one from rifle fire but a tank round is something complete different. The resulting tank fire can be seen at the end of the video below which also shows the Hamas terrorists firing at the IDF position across the border. The moral is to not annoy people who have greater firepower than you are protected against. With any luck, this might convince the military wing of Hamas to agree to a ceasefire. The only real problem with reaching a ceasefire with Hamas is that they will break the agreement as soon as they have rearmed sufficiently to cause more damage and threat to life than their last round of violence. This is why they call any ceasefire a hudna, which in Islamic history is an agreement for ten years or until the Islamic forces have rearmed sufficiently to achieve their goals.

On a brighter note, Ruach HaShem Gordon from Shilo, Israel, won the male youth 14-15 category in 40kg at the 1/4 semi-final against a Sri Lankan opponent with a final score 30-28, although weighing less than 40kg and being shorter than his opponent. He will continue into the semifinals and we wish him good fortune, as this is Ruach’s second time at the Youth World Championship. Israelis often do very well in many of these martial arts competitions partially due to training in Krav Maga, an Israeli developed martial art used by the IDF, as it is a method for overwhelming an opponent reaching a quick and some claim brutal victory.

The Russian interference in the 2016 election continues to limp ahead with them now hinting that they are now considering looking into conspiracy of President Trump. There is a reason for why they have stated this change in direction. The level of proof for conspiracy is so far below the original charges of actual criminal acts to alter the results of the election. What appears to have come about is that the Mueller special council investigation is as they find less and less evidence of any wrong-doing or even collusion that they are continuing to move the goal posts closer and close such that they have lowered the bar about as low as is possible. The only question is when will the plug be pulled and what will happen when that day finally arrives. Nancy Pelosi and others have threatened to bring charges against President Trump for impeachment for obstruction of justice if he were to end the Mueller special council investigation. The already ridiculousness of the original charge for the Mueller investigation where he was charged to investigate the Trump campaign and anybody connected to the campaign for wrongdoing beginning with Russian collusion to alter the results of the election to any other criminal acts which can be uncovered. A simple description of these guidelines was that Mueller was to investigate until he found something with which he could charge President Trump no matter how far they had to go or how slight the criminal act or hint thereof.

The initial Iran sanctions have been passed which will make nations and companies have to choose whether they wish to do business with Iran or with the United States. The President of Iran, Rouhani, responded to the move claiming that he would be willing to meet with President Trump as requested without preconditions providing that the United States apologizes for all that they have done to damage Iran and pay compensations to Iran. What is it with these Middle East dictatorial regimes that they believe that no preconditions means that they do not need to give up anything but the United States and Israel must be required to surrender everything these countries demand and then they will discuss any further surrender which will be demanded by these nations. Actually, if one studies Islam they will immediately understand that it simply states that Allah has promised them that they will rule the world and as Muslims, they are superior to all others. Islam places Muslims above everybody else because anyone who is not a believer of Islam is a Dhimmi, which makes them a second-class people who must defer to any and all Muslims. As a Dhimmi, you have no right to be represented in any court case which is brought against them. Non-Muslims are subjected to Dhimmitude as how they will be treated. This is usually reserved for Jews and Christians as People of the Book while others have even less rights under Islam. Some within Islam have stated that the United States was founded upon an Islamic foundation rather than a Christian or Judeo-Christian foundation, thus the United States is actually an Islamic State.

On a completely different front, the gender wars continue in the Western World. The main concept behind this movement apparently is that the normative over 90% of the world must defer to the minority sexually different people who most would claim are confused about their gender. It was not that long ago that such people were listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as requiring mental health counselling and assistance. They would have been referred to psychologists for treatment rather than the normative population being forced to facilitate this small minority and whatever their proclivities demand. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was edited such that these disorders were removed from the list of disorders under extreme pressure from those who desire removing all sexual disorders or unlawful proclivities from their former classifications under the law and mental disorders and instead injected into normative society and demand they be made comfortable no matter how uncomfortable it may make the majority of people. One of the demands from these activists is that everybody be permitted to use whichever restroom which agrees with their emotional state and not necessarily their physical gender. They refer to these gender confused people of having the wrong gender as an accident of birth and their genes and these people should be permitted to use restrooms and even showers at the gym which agree with their mental state and not their gender which is merely an accident of physiology.

Future World will be Bright One Way or the Other

The world has so many ideas in the modern world which would have been considered a sign of mental disorders if people were to suggest these ideas be considered, let alone passed into law, back not all that long ago. Sometimes, as people somewhat advanced in age, but not overtly so, we look at a world we do not recognize with ideas being considered as normal today which were considered not to even be discussed in polite conversation back in the day, as we call it. As to where the world is going, we have a difficult enough time dealing with some of where the world has reached. We have realized that the speed with which changes are arriving has increased exponentially and will only accelerate from here. We see a future where things are going to change; our only worry is which direction this change will be. Will the age of Artificial Intelligence and robotics arrive before a new and probably decisively final World War where weapons potentially beyond our imaginations are used and the result to society and the world will be far beyond our reckoning. The future could reach heights where many of the current problems will finally be problems in the past worldwide and a world where computers are used to advance the human condition and robotics free people up to pursue their own directions and the people in the current third world will have resources providing food and clean water and a level of life which is unthinkable to them currently. There could be a future where want will be something of the past, resources will be made available for the conquest of space, and a completely new frontier will be opened for the human race. The other direction the world might take will pit the human race in a divisive war where almost the entirety of the world will end up choosing sides and survival will be the main goal of humanity. We pray every day for the best and fear for the worst and unfortunately, that is the limit of our power. The next decade will be decisive and perhaps we will have the opportunity to do another one of these articles and sum up the changes, or not.

It does not matter if it is in the United States, Europe or Israel; the people who are claiming it is inhuman to deport illegal immigrants are steeped in racism. I know their main argument is the deportation is racist at its heart. The truth is it is not racist to deport illegal immigrants if the sole delineating reason in choosing those to be deported is to deport those who came into the country illegally back to the country from which they originated providing they will not be automatically imprisoned or worse. If their originating nation may be problematic and there is a third nation willing to give them refuge from their originating area of the world, then this is also permitted. Thusfar, the main nations in the Developed World who are currently in the process to deport illegal immigrants, not refugees as they are claimed to be by those opposing the action often for political reasons, such as if these people were to become citizens with the right to vote they would support their party; the UNHRC has approved these deportations. But there is one argument which is very vicious and in bad taste, that sending them back to the nation, or even continent, will lead to their being oppressed and suffering because these nations are cruel or the governance is unfit and thus makes their return impossible. These arguments have little if any evidence and are made boldly swiping entire areas as being unfit in which to live simply because of their supposed indecency to one another.

Taking such a swipe at the developing world is basically racist as it takes entire regions and claims that because of their populations and the governments they choose and their ways of life are so substandard that they are unfit for life. Swiping Africa, South America or the Islamic world as being unfit place to live and defining life there as torturous for their citizens, does not mean that every nation in the developed world must automatically grant economic asylum to anybody who originated from these areas and have managed to enter the nation in question by any means. Such an argument, if carried to the ultimate, would mean that if somebody from Greece or Italy took a trip to Canada, Britain or Germany they should be permitted to live and work there and become citizens because they came from a nation which was economically less well off. Such an argument carried to the logical conclusion, the entire world would be on their way to Germany, the United States, Britain and Israel and even some locations in China and the remainder of the world would become depopulated. Why not take people and move them to places where their lives would be easier? Well, because it would not take long before the migration was complete, the nations which had been economically well off would become third world nations as they would not be capable of employing or handling the invasion of immigrants. There are reasons that nations need and must be permitted to control the immigrants who enter across their borders. The days of uncontrolled immigration ended with the onset of the industrial revolution as this produces a more skilled workforce with specialized skills and required a more structured and intensive education.

It does not do the immigrant any favors to place them in a nation which has a considerably better economic environment if they are not skilled or sufficiently educated to take advantage of the presumed opportunities. If the immigrant is only capable of taking is menial jobs which pay minimal level salary their life may end up less rewarding and with less advantages than they would have had in their native country. There exists a similar example with the dark side of affirmative action in higher education. Too often a minority student who is quite capable of excelling at their State University are admitted to an Ivy League University filling their affirmative action quota, and it really is a quota system, will not succeed and end up failing and once they have failed, finding a university which will accept them becomes more difficult and thus even the State University where they would have excelled will now no longer admit them, or at least not for three or more years. This is described in the book “Please Stop Helping Us” which is summarized in this article by Thomas Sowell. The book also covers such actions with other areas including foreign aid being counterproductive especially when the aid is agricultural products being sent to a nation which had an agrarian economy.

The describing the originating nations and continents where these immigrants originate as being so inferior and backwards that even existence in these places should be considered torture is unbelievably racist. Many of these nations are making great strides towards modernity and their standard of living is approaching European standards and exceeding the standard of living in a number of European countries. One can only wonder why it is that these supposed pro-immigrant individuals who are really only pro-illegal-immigrant as they would be against illegal immigrants say from France or Italy being permitted to live despite being illegal in Sweden or the United States. They even are against European immigration to the United States and demand that all immigrants be from Third World as European immigrants are unworthy and do not need the advantage of moving to the United States. They only scream when illegal immigrants are to be returned to their nation of origin or neighboring country willing to take them. A perfect example is in Israel where thirty-thousand illegal immigrants are to be returned either to their nation of origin or a third country willing to accept them as immigrants. The nation which is willing to accept them has a higher-level economy than their nation of origin. Israel is not deporting those who are married, women, children, their parents and those from Darfur. Those being deported are being awarded approximately the equivalent of three-thousand dollars to facilitate their relocation. Still, there are people from the left politically who are demanding these illegal immigrants be permitted to remain in Israel. Some have also made the claim that Israel should be open to any such refugees from Africa or Asia in any numbers which would prefer living in Israel. What these people are actually proposing is the death of Israel and the Jewish Homeland.

Those desiring making Israel simply a democracy where anybody in any number be permitted to enter the nation to take advantage of the better economy simply want to end the idea of a Jewish State. We would bet that they would not make the same demand if the nation in question were Japan. The requirements to become a citizen of Japan are:

1) Continuous residence in Japan for five years or more
2) At least 20 years old and otherwise legally competent
3) History of good behavior generally, and no past history of seditious behavior
4) Sufficient capital or skills, either personally or within family, to support oneself
5) Stateless or willing to renounce foreign citizenship

Requirement number three precludes citizenship for illegal immigrant. So, should Japan be required to make an exception and permit citizenship for illegal immigrants from economically challenged nations as is being demanded of European countries, Israel and the United States? Imagine thirteen million Chinese peasant farmers, one tenth the population of Japan’s one-hundred-twenty-seven-million, made their way to Japan, should they offer them citizenship? It should be mentioned that Japan discourages those not of Japanese heritage, even if married to a Japanese spouse, to try to become a citizen. Japan desires to remain the homeland of the Japanese people. Israel has merely eight and a half million citizens, seven percent the population of Japan. Japan has a total area of three-hundred-seventy-eight thousand square kilometers and Israel has a mere twenty-one thousand square kilometers which is five and a half percent. Israel has just over four-hundred citizens per square kilometer and Japan has just over three-hundred-thirty-five citizens per square kilometer.

Map of Japan with Israel Imposed to Scale

So, if you thought that Japan should not be required as, like most people, you believed Japan to be overcrowded already, well, Israel has a slightly higher population density than Japan. What this comes back to is one of our least favorite but consistent threat, those who desire to erase the Jewish State by any means possible. Forcing Israel to accept any and all illegal immigrants who cross their border would be a guaranteed method which is probably why a five judge panel of the usually leftist Israel Supreme Court ruled against the complaint filed demanding that these illegal immigrants be granted refugee status due to economic reasons. This infuriated many leftist NGO’s, mostly those who despite registering as Israeli are funded and have their main operations and financing from outside Israel along with American and European NGOs whose main area is targeting Israel for complaints and court actions have now decided to raise as much noise and negative publicity as they possibly are capable. This racket is manufactured and actually has little actual support with Israelis. Many of the people protesting are in Israel on a protest vacation, and why not as Israel is a nice place to vacation and they are actually here for the Tel Aviv nightlife, so daytime protests can be accommodated providing they are not too early in the day. There are some who are protesting online or from their home location. It is all simply noise which is much ado about nothing as the decisions have been made, the arrangements completed, and everybody is being tight lipped about everything. Why allow for additional aggravation or allow the busybodies more targets. Israel has wisely decided to be the only target while not letting on where these illegal immigrants are destined until it is too late to pressure that nation. But at least Israel, and likely the United States as well, are used to receiving grief for anything and everything the government does with demonstrations and court actions. At least this time the Supreme Court of Israel actually made a good decision for the preservation of the state.

Kelo v. City of New London was the test case which now is the frame for the law of the land on private ownership of property. This case went to the Supreme Court of the United States where there was a conservative court of five Republican appointees and four Democrat appointees in 2005. As expected, the final vote was five to four but we will keep which way the vote went until later. First, let us review the particulars of this case. The plaintiff was Susette Kelo who owned a private home and sued the city of New London, Connecticut, over their use of Eminent Domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner in order to further economic development. The city posed the argument that their transfer of these lands, which included the home of Susette Kelo, to a private developer would expand the tax base plus provide economic development and jobs which would benefit a much larger segment of the people making the taking of the homes of these citizens worth doing in order to promote the general good. The citizens represented by Susette Kelo based their claim that their homes, as private property, were a sacred trust protected which was a superior claim and that the claim to use Eminent Domain was not a legal use as the transfer was not for a public use building and that Eminent Domain was solely applicable to public works such as roads, schools, hospitals, libraries and other such structures and not for providing the lands to a developer to build which was referenced as a “Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan.”

We remember when this case was being discussed on talk radio and in many of the nation’s newspapers. The breakdown on which side was supported was predictable. The mostly older citizens represented by Susette Kelo were supported by the conservative and right wing media while New London, Connecticut, government representing the developers was supported by the liberal and leftist media with a few notable exceptions who were true liberals with a very libertarian outlook. The arguments went as expected. Those supporting Susette Kelo held that personal property rights were superior to granting a big developer use of these lands over the individuals whose families had lived in this neighborhood for decades. The leftists and many liberals supported the “Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan” as it would provide increased revenue for the city of New London, Connecticut, thus benefitting the entire city over the few people. This was the public debate and that was a heated debate for that time. One need remember that the Internet was still young and social media was still to come so this debate took place in the old school arenas, that being radio, television, cable TV, newspapers and magazines. As we have stated, it was straight-forward individual citizen’s rights who owned their property over the designs and dreams of a developer and the greed of city administrators licking their chops at the increased tax base. But there was a surprise waiting to take the day in court.

The argument in the court found their trumping argument, they portrayed the remaining homeowners’ properties as eyesores, rundown, in need of repair and every other degrading description they could imagine, and they were imaginative. They had bought the majority of properties and either leveled them or left them to fall into disrepair. This furthered their insistence that these properties were eyesores and many below standards for viability. One look at the residence of Susette Kelo shows a well kept and very livable condition, but there were sufficient other residences which were available for the city and the developer to make their case for demolition of the remaining residences allowing them to receive the orders for destruction in order to upgrade the entire area. The combined arguments and predominance of evidence supporting that this was an old and run down area played a main role in allowing the decision to leave the longtime homeowners with nowhere left to turn. Additionally, their losing the case meant they were forced to accept the city’s low figure for buying their homes. The homeowners who fought city hall did so out of a deep family attachment to their homes which many of the residents had grown up in as children and inherited from their parents who in some cases inherited them from their parents. When you live in a multi-generation house, the attachment is deep and often will lead one to become overly emotional. These homeowners would very likely had received a far greater amount for their homes had they simply taken the developers final offer rather than fight them in the courts. Such a fight is unfortunately a losing fight which the homeowner will lose, if not in the near time, then in the long-term, as was the case here. Going to court is always a last resort and even if you win the initial case, the developer has attorneys on their payrolls so it does not cost them anything but time to appeal and appeal and eventually they will find a sympathetic judge and once they win, the homeowner is highly unlikely to get that decision reversed as the higher court will defer to the judgement of the lower court as to the conditions at the local level. This was a case, pure and simple, of you cannot fight city hall. Apparently, the Supreme Court agrees with that adage.

Monthly Archives

Monthly Archives

Welcome to Beyond the Cusp.

BTC is an opinion and viewpoint blog on politics, world events, predictions, and life. Comments are moderated and usually posted within 48 hours. Welcome and hope you enjoy our efforts.
Take Good Cheer!
BTC